American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 9 (3): 248-255, 2010 ISSN 1818-6769 IDOSI Publications, 2010 Effect of Grapevine Varietal Differences on Bud Fertility, Yield and Fruit Quality under Arid Environments and Domestic Wastewater Irrigation R.S. Al-Obeed, H.A. Kassem and M.A. Ahmed Department of Plant Production, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Abstract: This study was carried out during the years 2008 and 2009 at the Research and Agricultural Experimental Station at Dirab, King Saud University, Riyadh in order to examine the differences in grape but fertility, production and fruit quality between newly planted and local grapevine cultivars grown under arid environments and irrigated with domestic wastewater. The local cultivars were; Kamaly, Soltany, Taify, White Shatta, Des El-Anz and Halawany whereas, the newly planted cultivars were; Red Glop, Perlette, Flame Seedless, Crimson, Superior, Thompson Seedless and King Ruby. Data indicated that Flame Seedless, King Ruby, Kamaly, Soltany, White Shatta and Halawany cultivars had a significantly higher bud fertility percent than all other cultivars. Kamaly had a significantly higher bud fertility coefficient percent than King Ruby, Des El-Anz, Taiefy, White Shatta and Halawany. In general, both Kamaly and Soltany cultivars had similar and a significantly higher yield than the other cultivars, whereas, Kamaly and King Ruby had similar and a significantly heavier cluster than the other cultivars. The lowest cluster length and width was found in Thompson Seedless and Flame Seedless cultivars. Halawany, Perlette, Kamaly and Flame Seedless, had similar and a significantly higher berry firmness than King Ruby, Des El-Anz and Taief. Soltany and Kamaly had similar and a significantly higher berry length than Thompson Seedless and Flame Seedless. Berry width was similar in Thompson Seedless and Flame Seedless and lower than Red Glop, Superior, Halawany, Soltany, Halawany and White Shatta. Flame Seedless, Des El-Anz, King Ruby and Crimson had similar and a significantly higher berry TSS and TSS / acidity ratio than all other studied cultivars. Berry moisture content of Perlette and Flame Seedless was similar and higher than Halawany, Superior, Des El-Anz, Taiefy, Kamaly and King Ruby. Berry dry matter percent of King Ruby and Kamaly was similar and higher than most studied cultivars. Key words:comparative studies Grapevine cultivars Soil and environmental conditions Bud fertility Yield Quality Wastewater INTRODUCTION water. Accordingly, these conditions are expected to reduce vine growth and productivity (by 50%) which The grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) is considered to be would directly influenced berry quality such as berry one of the most economically fruit crops in the world. weight, sugars content, color and size [3]. The success of In Saudi Arabia, the cultivated area with grapevines viticulture depends basically on the growing conditions, increased recently. According to the FAO [1], it reached variety [4] and proper trellising system [5]. Local varieties 11675 hectares producing 144430 tons. In Riyadh region are likely to be more resistant and more suitable for (central district of Saudi Arabia), many new grape growing under local climate conditions. Their yield is cultivars are being recently cultivated in order to sometimes low, but with high quality. Moreover, overcome market demands. However, this region is grapevine cultivars are known to vary dramatically in commonly characterized with arid and semi-arid their fertility and berry quality characteristics [3, 6, 7, 8]. environmental conditions, as well as coarse-textured soil, Thus, these newly introduced cultivars should be with high CaCO3 and low organic matter levels [2]. Also, evaluated and selected by estimating their fertility, crop the irrigation water mainly used in this region is a treated production in order to help grape growers in Riyadh to domestic wastewater as an alternative source of fresh decide which variety will be planted. Corresponding Author: H.A. Kassem, Plant Production Dept., College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, E-mail: kassem60@yahoo.com. 248
The present work aimed to evaluate some newly In winter of each year, a mixture of organic manure, cultivated grape varieties in Riyadh in comparison with potassium sulfate (48% K2O), mono super phosphate the local verities; Kamaly, Soltany, Taify, White Shatta, (15.5% P2O 5) and ammonium sulphate (21% N) at the rates Des El-Anz and Halawany in their bud fertility, yield of 10 kg, 100 gm, 150 gm and 70 gm / vine, respectively production and berries physical and chemical which was ditched in the vineyard soil at a depth of 20-25 characteristics. cm from the soil surface and 30 cm far from the vine trunk. In addition, 100 gm ammonium sulphate, 100 gm MATERIALS AND METHODS potassium sulphate, and 150 gm calcium super phosphate / vine were added during each growing season. Plant Materials and Experimental Conditions: The present investigation was conducted during the 2008 Bud Fertility: In both experimental years, during pruning and 2009 years at the Research and Agricultural time (December) the total number of unopened buds per Experimental Station at Dirab, King Saud University, vine for all studied cultivars was recorded. Also, after bud Riyadh on some local and modern grapevine cultivars bursting (March), the average number of fruiting bud per (Vitis vinifera L.). Local cultivars were Kamaly, Soltany, vine was counted. Also, in May of both growing seasons, Taify, White Shatta, Des El-Anz and Halawany, while the the number of clusters per vine was recorded, and the newly planted cultivars were Red Glop, Perlette, Flame percentage of bud fertility and bud fertility coefficient Seedless, Crimson, Superior, Thompson Seedless and were calculated according to El-Sharkawy [9] as follows: King Ruby. Kamaly, Soltany, Taify, White Shatta, King Ruby, Bes El-Anz, Halawany, Red Glop, Flame Seedless, Bud fertility % = (Number of fruiting buds Crimson and Superior cultivars were which cordon-spur- /total number of buds) 100 pruned, whereas, those of Thompson Seedless and Bud fertility coefficient % = (Number of clusters Perlette were cane-pruned. All vines were pruned to about /total number of buds) 100 40-45 buds in each season. The soil of the experimental orchard is a sandy loam saline calcareous with ph 7.5-7.8, Yield: In both growing seasons, all clusters from each EC 6.62-6.86 ds/m, CaCO 3 33.7% and organic matter replicate were harvested at optimum maturity stage, when 0.38%. Ten years old grapevines, almost uniform in vigor total soluble solids attained about 16-18% for each were chosen at random from each cultivar. All vines were cultivar [10]. Clusters of each replicate were counted and planted at 1.5 3 meters spacing. The experimental design weighed and the yield as number and kg of clusters per was a randomized complete design with five replicates for vine was determined. A sample of four clusters was taken each treatment. Each replicate consisted of two adjacent at random from the harvested yield of each replicate and vines. Vines were annually irrigated with treated domestic transported to the laboratory to determine the clusters waste water by flooding irrigation system. The chemical and berries physico-chemical quality characteristics as properties of the treated domestic wastewater (irrigation follows: water) are presented in Table 1. Physical Characteristics: Table 1: Chemical properties of the treated domestic wastewater (irrigation water) Properties Value Properties Value EC ds/m 2.58 B ** 1.38 ph 6.99 Mn *** 15.1 + Na * 11.34 Cr *** 90.6 + K * 0.39 Co *** 4.9 ++ Ca * 9.51 Ni *** 109 ++ Mg * 5.25 Cu *** 291 HCO 3 - * 3.72 Zn *** 204 SO 4 -- * 17.62 As *** 1.64 - Cl * 11.26 Cd *** 1.73 NO 3 - ** 9.04 Pd *** 15.8 * meq/l ** ppm *** ppb Average of cluster weight (g). Average of cluster length and width (cm). Berry weight (weight of 100 berries, g). Berry width and length (cm), and berry shape index (length/width). 3 Juice volume per 100 berries (cm ). 2 Berry firmness(gm / cm ), by using a texture analyzer instrument; Fruit Hardness Tester, No.510-1as a small cylinder (3 mm in diameter) penetrates into a distance of 3 mm inside the berry with a speed of 0.2 mm / second, then the resistance of berry to this penetration force was recorded and taken as an expression of berry firmness. 249
Chemical Characteristics: had the significantly lowest bud fertility coefficient as compared with all other cultivars. Moreover, no Juice total soluble solids (TSS) and acidity (%). significant differences in bud fertility coefficient was TSS/acidity ratio obtained among the cultivars; Flame Seedless, Crimson, Berry moisture and dry matter content (%). Perlette, Soltany and Kamaly. In addition, a significant Juice ph. interaction effect on bud fertility and bud fertility coefficient between the different grape cultivars and the The percentage of total soluble solids was measured years was obtained. by a hand refractometer (A.S.T., Japan), acidity as tartaric The variations found among the studied grapevine acid was determined by titration with 0.1 N Na OH cultivars support the findings reported by Girgis et al. [6], according to AOAC [11]. Juice ph was measured with Tourky et al. [7], Sluyter et al. [8], Stanescu [13] and Accumet 950 ph/ion meter (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, Csepregi [14]. The percentage of bud fertility obtained in PA). Berry moisture and dry matter contents were the present study ranged between 31.9 (in Superior) to calculated as follows: 56.9 (in Halawany). Higher bud fertility ranged from 58.9 to 71.7% for different grapevine cultivars which was Berry moisture (%) = (Average fresh weight-average recorded by Tourky et al. [7]. In general, local cultivars dry weight/average fresh weight) had higher bud fertility than the new cultivated ones. x 100 Similarly, high bud fertility for local grape varieties was Berry dry matter (%) = (Average dry weight /Average reported by Sluyter et al. [8]. fresh weight) x 100 Yield: Data presented in Table 2 indicated that, Statistical Analysis: All data were tested for treatments regardless of the years, the Kamaly and Soltany cultivars effects on analyzed parameters by the general linear model had similar and significantly higher yield (as Kg / vine) (GLM) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique as a than all other cultivars, except Taiefy, Halawany and Red combined analysis. Means of cultivars effect in each year Glop, which did not vary significantly among each other. and over the two years were separated and compared However, Thompson Seedless, Des El-Anz and White using the Honest Significant Differences (HSD) at 0.05 Shatta produced the lowest yield. Moreover, significant level of significance according to Snedecor and Cochran variance was found between Des El-Anz, Red Glop and [12]. Superior, and also between Flame Seedless, King Ruby, Thompson Seedless, Crimson, Perlette, Superior, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Des El-Anz and White Shatta. In addition, data in Table 2 revealed that, the yield as number of clusters per vine was Bud Fertility and Fertility Coefficient: With regard to the significantly higher in Halawany, Flame Seedless, Kamaly cultivars effect only, data presented in Table 2 indicated and Soltany than Perlette, Des El-Anz and King Ruby, that Flame Seedless, Roumy Red, Kamaly, Soltany, White without significant differences among the cultivars of Shatta and Halawany had a significantly higher bud each group. Additionally, Halawany had significantly fertility percent than all other cultivars, except Taiefy. No higher clusters number than Superior and Crimson. significant variances were found among Roumy Red, However, no significant difference in clusters number per Kamaly, Soltany, White Shatta and Halawany cultivars, as vines was found among the cultivars; Taiefy, King Ruby, well as between Taiefy, Des El-Anz and Perlette. Bud Red Glop, Crimson, Superior and Thompson Seedless, and fertility percent in Taiefy cultivar was higher than among White Shatta, Perlette and Des El-Anz. A Superior, Crimson, Red Glop and Thompson Seedless, significant interaction effect on vine yield between the which did not vary significantly in their bud fertility. different grape cultivars and both experimental years was However, the Superior cultivar had the lowest bud fertility obtained. These results are in line with those previously percent. Moreover, the Kamaly cultivar had a significantly stated by Thakur et al. [3], Girgis et al. [6], Tourky et al. higher bud fertility coefficient percent than Roumy Red, [7], Sluyter et al. [8] and Cindric et al. [15]. Since all of Des El-Anz, Taiefy, White Shatta and Halawany, which them reported differences in vine yield and clusters did not vary significantly in their bud fertility coefficient. number among the grapevine cultivars which they Data also showed that Red Glop and Superior cultivars studied. 250
Table 2: Bud fertility, bud fertility coefficient and yiled of the experimental cultivars in 2008 and 2009 years Bud fertility (%) Bud fertility coefficient (%) Yield kg/vine No.of cluster/ vine --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- Grape cultivars 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. Thompson Seedless 28.9 36.9 32.9 21.8 31.2 26.5 1.9 2.9 2.4 13.5 15.9 14.7 King Ruby 49.2 58.5 53.9 25.0 40.2 32.6 2.4 3.9 3.2 7.7 15.5 11.6 Flame Seedless 39.1 58.9 49.0 30.2 43.2 36.7 1.7 4.1 2.9 13.5 26.8 20.2 Red Glop 24.7 44.9 34.8 13.5 20.7 17.1 3.1 4.9 4.0 14.1 20.2 17.2 Crimson 38.9 45.9 42.4 27.9 40.5 34.2 2.5 4.4 3.5 13.0 19.3 16.2 Perlette 35.4 58.0 46.7 31.2 46.6 38.9 2.2 3.0 2.6 11.6 14.3 13.0 Superior 23.3 40.5 31.9 14.0 28.8 21.4 2.0 4.6 3.3 12.3 19.8 16.1 Des El-Anz 37.3 41.9 39.6 25.3 30.3 27.8 1.5 3.1 2.3 8.9 15.8 12.4 Taiefy 35.4 50.4 42.9 23.7 41.9 32.8 3.0 4.4 3.7 15.2 18.3 16.8 Kamaly 40.3 64.9 52.6 33.3 52.5 42.9 4.6 6.9 5.8 15.3 25.2 20.3 Soltany 37.5 64.3 50.9 26.0 49.6 37.8 2.8 6.7 4.8 17.3 25.4 21.4 White Shatta 44.3 57.9 51.1 20.7 38.7 29.7 1.9 2.7 2.3 11.4 14.5 13.0 Halawany 47.9 65.9 56.9 25.9 41.7 33.8 2.8 5.0 3.9 19.5 28.6 24.1 - HSD 0.05 12.4 12.4 8.8 8.9 8.9 6.4 1.8 1.8 1.3 10.5 10.5 7.2 Table 3: Cluster weight, length and width and weight of 100 berries of the experimental cultivars in 2008 and 2009 years Cluster weight (g) Cluster length (cm) Cluster width (cm) Weight of 100 berries (g) --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- Grape cultivars 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. Thompson Seedless 144 180 162 10.0 11.6 10.8 4.1 7.5 5.8 110 124 117 King Ruby 307 250 279 19.4 17.3 18.4 8.0 8.4 8.2 225 213 234 Flame Seedless 125 156 141 9.3 11.2 10.3 4.6 6.0 5.3 88 154 121 Red Glop 219 240 230 18.2 21.4 19.8 9.6 11.8 10.7 289 441 365 Crimson 195 230 213 14.5 18.9 16.7 5.9 7.7 7.3 293 377 335 Perlette 192 210 201 15.9 19.0 17.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 238 274 256 Superior 172 236 204 14.2 17.4 15.8 6.4 8.0 7.2 263 341 302 Des El-Anz 174 196 185 15.2 18.6 16.9 6.7 7.8 7.4 237 255 246 Taiefy 200 240 220 14.1 20.7 17.4 7.0 10.0 8.5 292 310 301 Kamaly 299 272 286 17.0 18.2 17.6 6.4 11.4 8.9 210 266 238 Soltany 164 265 215 9.3 18.7 14.0 3.9 8.9 6.4 237 255 246 White Shatta 170 183 177 14.5 18.5 16.7 4.4 9.8 7.1 334 360 347 Halawany 145 174 160 18.9 22.5 20.7 7.7 10.4 9.1 252 280 266 - HSD 0.05 80 80 57 9.1 9.1 6.4 3.2 3.2 2.3 73 73 52 Cluster Physical Characteristics White Shatta, Des El-Anz, Halawany and Thompson Cluster Weight: With regard to the cultivars only, data Seedless. A significant interaction effect on cluster weight presented in Table 3 indicated that, the Kamaly and between the different grape cultivars and the years was Roumy Red had similar and significantly heavier cluster obtained. Variations in cluster weight among different than all other cultivars, except Red Glop. Likewise, grapevine cultivars were previously reported since Sluyter Red Glop produced significantly heavier cluster than et al. [8] indicated a higher cluster weight of some grape White Shatta, Perlette, Superior, Des El-Anz, Taiefy, local cultivars such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Kadarka and Soltany and Crimson, which did not differ significantly Pirosszlanka. Also, Thakur et al. [3] found that the among each other. In the meantime, the Taiefy cultivar Cardinal cultivar had high value of cluster weight (4.8 g). produced significantly heavier clusters than Flame Seedless, Halawany and Thompson Seedless, which did Cluster Length and Width: Data presented in Table 3 not significantly differ in their cluster weight. On the indicated that, regardless of the two seasons, the other hand, Flame Seedless produced the lowest cluster Thompson Seedless and Flame Seedless had similar weight as compared with all studied cultivars, except and significantly lower cluster length and width than 251
Table 4: Juice volume of 100 berries, berry length, width and shape of the experimental cultivars in 2008 and 2009 years Juice volume of 100 berries (ml) Berry length (cm) Berry width (cm) Berry shape ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Grape cultivars 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. Thompson Seedless 72 86 79 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.1 King Ruby 148 174 161 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.2 Flame Seedless 60 112 86 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 Red Glop 221 367 294 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 Crimson 220 306 263 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.3 Perlette 172 200 186 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.1 Superior 193 281 237 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.3 Des El-Anz 170 198 184 2.9 2.6 2.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 Taiefy 239 243 241 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 Kamaly 139 187 163 2.6 2.5 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 Soltany 189 199 194 2.4 1.9 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.0 1.2 White Shatta 279 291 285 2.0 1.9. 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 Halawany 190 220 205 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 HSD 0.05 67 67 48 1.5 1.5 0.9 NS NS 0.6 0.57 0.57 0.4 Table 5: Berry firmness and chemical properties of the experimental cultivars in 2008 and 2009 years Firmness (gm / cm2) TSS (%) Acidity (%) TSS/ Acidity ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------- Grape cultivars 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. Thompson Seedless 285 263 274 21 20 21 0.4 0.3 0.4 53 67 60 King Ruby 224 248 236 21 24 23 0.3 0.4 0.4 70 60 65 Flame Seedless 292 296 294 22 21 22 0.4 0.4 0.4 55 53 54 Red Glop 277 278 278 18 17 18 0.4 0.5 0.4 45 34 40 Crimson 243 284 264 20 22 21 0.3 0.5 0.4 67 44 56 Perlette 269 294 282 16 18 17 0.5 0.6 0.6 32 30 31 Superior 249 279 264 17 15 16 0.4 0.3 0.4 46 50 48 Des El-Anz 263 238 251 19 22 21 0.3 0.5 0.4 63 44 54 Taiefy 246 250 248 17 15 16 0.5 0.6 0.6 34 25 30 Kamaly 293 314 304 17 19 18 0.3 0.4 0.4 57 48 53 Soltany 252 294 273 15 14 15 0.5 0.4 0.5 30 35 33 White Shatta 313 254 284 16 19 18 0.3 0.5 0.4 53 38 46 Halawany 280 293 287 14 17 16 0.4 0.5 0.5 35 34 35 HSD 0.05 47 47 30 4.5 4.5 3 NS NS NS 11.7 11.7 8 Halawany, Red Glop, Perlette, Taiefy, Kamaly and King Ruby cultivars, which did not significantly differ among each other in their cluster length and width. Moreover, neither cluster length nor the width; were significantly differed between White Shatta, Superior, Des El-Anz, Soltany and Crimson cultivars, and Roumy Red. A significant interaction effect between the different grape cultivars and the years on cluster length and width was obtained. Similarly, Aliami [16] and Al-Saif [17] stated that, there are clear differences in the cluster length and width of the different local grape varieties grown in Saudi Arabia. The present results are in agreement with those obtained by Daratech Pty Ltd [18], Kondarev et al. [19], Sun [20] and Xu et al. [21]. Since all of them reported found that the different grape cultivars vary greatly in their cluster length and width. Berry Physical Characteristics: The different berry physical characteristics are presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5. With regard to the cultivars effect only, the obtained data indicated that, regardless of both years, the Red Glop and White Shatta cultivars had similar and produced significantly heavier berries weight and larger juice volume than all other cultivars, except Taiefy, Superior and Crimson, which did not significantly vary among each other. Similarly, the King Ruby produced higher berries weight and juice than Flame Seedless and Thompson Seedless cultivars. In addition, both Flame Seedless and 252
Table 6: Berry moisture and dry matter and juice ph of the experimental cultivars in 2008 and 2009 years Moisture (%) Dry matter (%) ph ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Grape cultivars 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. 2008 2009 Ave. Thompson Seedless 90 84 87 10 16 13 4.2 4.3 4.3 King Ruby 67 81 74 33 19 26 3.9 4.3 4.1 Flame Seedless 87 85 86 13 15 14 4.0 4.4 4.2 Red Glop 77 83 80 23 17 20 5.4 4.8 5.1 Crimson 79 87 83 21 13 17 5.3 4.3 4.8 Perlette 87 85 86 13 15 14 5.3 4.8 5.0 Superior 72 86 79 28 14 21 3.8 4.0 3.9 Des El-Anz 76 78 77 24 22 23 4.4 4.0 4.2 Taiefy 80 74 77 20 26 23 3.8 4.1 4.0 Kamaly 67 79 73 33 21 27 3.8 3.8 3.8 Soltany 76 86 81 24 14 19 3.9 4.1 4.0 White Shatta 84 80 82 16 20 18 3.9 3.9 3.9 Halawany 82 76 79 18 24 21 5.2 4.2 4.7 HSD 0.05 12 12 7 8 8 5 NS NS 1.2 Thompson Seedless cultivars had similar berries weight between cultivars and years on all berry physical quality, and juice volume. Also, the cultivars Halawany, Perlette, except berry width was obtained. The present data are Des El-Anz, Kamaly, Soltany and King Ruby did not differ generally in line with those recorded by numerous among each other in their berries weight and juice volume. investigations working on different grapevines such as Berry length was similar in Red Glop, Crimson, Superior, Sluyter et al. [9], El-Sharkawy [9], Al-Saif [17], Kondarev Des El-Anz, Halawany, Soltany and Kamaly which were et al. [19], Abbal [22], Clark et al. [23] and Lane [24]. significantly higher than Thompson Seedless and Flame Additionally, the differences in the berry characters might Seedless cultivars, and no significantly difference was be due to the differences in cultivar's growth and vigor. obtained between both cultivars. Similarly, Des El-Anz had higher berry length than Perlette and Taiefy. Berry Chemical Characteristics: The differences Additionally, no significant differences in berry length obtained in berries chemical characteristics in the different were found among the cultivars; King Ruby, Perlette, studied cultivars are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Taiefy, Soltany, White Shatta and Halawany. Regardless of the experimental years, the obtained data Berry width was similar in Thompson Seedless and showed that, Thompson Seedless, Flame Seedless, Flame Seedless and was lower than that of Red Glop, Des El-Anz, King Ruby and Crimson cultivars had similar Superior, Halawany, Soltany, Halawany and White Shatta, and a significantly higher berry TSS content and without significant difference among them. Also, no TSS/acidity ratio than the all other studied cultivars. significant differences were found among Kamaly, Likewise, White Shatta, Kamaly and Red Glop had similar Perlette, Crimson, Des El-Anz, Taiefy and Roumy Red. and a significantly higher TSS and TSS/acidity ratio than However, the Des El-Anz cultivar had the best berry Superior, Soltany and Taiefy. In addition, the cultivars shape compared with all other cultivars, except Kamaly Halawany and Perlette did not differ from each other in and Crimson. In addition, berry shape did not differ their TSS/acidity ratio. In the meantime, the differences in significantly among the cultivars; Halawany, white Shatta, berry TSS content between Halawany, Perlette, Kamaly, Soltany, Taiefy, Superior, Perlette, Red Glop, Flame White Shatta and King Ruby cultivars were not Seedless, Roumy Red and Thompson Seedless. In the significant. Similar, no significant differences in juice meantime, the Halawany, Perlette, Kamaly and Flame acidity were obtained in all studied cultivars. Seedless, had similar and significantly higher berry Data in Table 6 indicated that berry moisture content firmness than King Ruby, Des El-Anz and Taiefy, which of Thompson Seedless, Perlette and Flame Seedless were did not significantly differ in their berry firmness. In similar and significantly higher than the cultivars; contrast, no significant differences were found among Halawany, Superior, Des El-Anz, Taiefy, Kamaly and King White Shatta, Red Glop, Crimson, Superior, Halawany and Ruby. Moreover, the later mentioned cultivars did not Thompson Seedless. A significant interaction effect significantly vary in their berries moisture content. 253
Furthermore, Crimson had higher berry moisture content than Roumy Red and Kamaly. However, Thompson Seedless, Flame Seedless, Crimson, Perlette, White Shatta and Soltany cultivars showed no significant differences in berry moisture content among each other. In addition, berry dry matter content of King Ruby and Kamaly were similar and higher than all other studied cultivars, except Taiefy and Des El-Anz. In the meantime, Taiefy and Des El-Anz cultivars had similar and higher berry dry matter content than Perlette, Flame Seedless, Crimson and Thompson Seedless. The later mentioned cultivars did not significantly differ from each other. The data also revealed that the Halawany and Superior grapes were similar and higher than Perlette, Flame Seedless and Thompson Seedless. In contrast, no significant difference was found between Taiefy, Kamaly, Des El-Anz and King Ruby and, also, between Halawany, Des El-Anz, Taiefy, Superior and Soltany. The later mentioned cultivars did not vary significantly in berry dry matter content when compared with White Shatta, Crimson, Perlette and Flame Seedless. Moreover, juice ph content was significantly higher in Red Glop than White Shatta, Kamaly and Superior. Whereas, no significant difference in juice ph was found among King Ruby, Flame Seedless, Taiefy, Perlette, Des El-Anz, Halawany, Red Glop, Crimson, Soltany and Thompson Seedless. A significant interaction influence between grape cultivars and the experimental years on the different chemical characters (except berry juice acidity and juice ph) was obtained. Similar variations among different grapevine cultivars in berry juice TSS, TSS/acidity ratio and ph and berry dry matter and moisture contents were also reported by Shikhamany et al. [5], El-Sharkawy [9], Al-Saif [17], Tardaguila et al. [25], and Russo et al. [26]. In the present study, the percentage of berry TSS content ranged from 16 (in Superior, Taiefy and Halawany) to 23 (in King Ruby). A similar high TSS content of 18.23% was reported by Thakur et al. [3] for the Delight grape cultivar. The differences among the studied cultivars in berry TSS and dry matter contents might be related to the differences in their net CO 2 assimilation and photosynthetic rates [27]. Similarly, Candolfi-Vasconcelos et al. [28] stated that the grape cultivars; K5BB, SO4, 8B, 5C, 3309C and Ruggeri 140 had higher photosynthetic rate than Rugeri 140. Furthermore, berry juice acidity content did not vary between all studied cultivars. These results agreed with those previously mentioned by Shikhamany et al. [5], Girgis et al. [6], Sluyter et al. [8] and Ekbic et al. [29] who working on different grapevine cultivars. CONCLUSION In general, it may be concluded that both local cultivars Kamaly and Soltany growing under Riyadh conditions surpassed all other studied cultivars in their productivity and quality, followed by the newly cultivated Red Glop and Flame Seedless cultivars. ACKNOWLEDGMENS Authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research and Research Center, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia for funding this study. REFERENCES 1. FAO. 2010. Faostat: Statistical Database, 10 February 2009. http://faostat.fao.org. 2. Modaihsh, A.S., 1992. Urea-based fertilizers influence on oat forage yield, nitrogen uptake and nitrogen leaching losses. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. Riyadh, 4(1): 139-150. 3. Thakur, A., N.K. Arora and S.P. Singh, 2008. Evaluation of some grape varieties in the arid irrigated region of northwest India. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 785: 79-84. 4. Yamane, H., A. Kurihara and M. Kakutani, 1991. New grape cultivar North Red. Bulletin of the Fruit Trees Res. Sta., (20): 41-48. 5. Shikhamany, S.D., P.L. Saroj and G.S. Prakash, 1993. Comparison of ripening of Thompson Seedless ana Arkavati grapes on different training systems. Crop. Res. (HISAR), 62(2): 276-283. 6. Girgis, V.H., S.I. A.EI-Shennawy and A.H. Ibrahim, 2002. Evaluation of some grapevine cultivars under Nobaria conditions. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 27(10): 6895-6905. http://www.actahort.org/books/785/785_6.htm 7. Tourky, M.N., S.S. EL-Shahat and M.H. Rizk, 2003. Evaluation of some new grape cultivars (blackrose, italia and ribier) under drip irrigation system in dakahliacovernorate. J. Product. and Dev., 8(1): 23-38. 8. Sluyter, S.V., M.J. Drako and C.J. Halkides, 2005. Comparison of Grape Chitinase Activities in Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon with Vitis rotundifolia cv. Fry. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 56: l8-85. 9. El-Sharkawy, I.G.M., 1995. Comparative studies and evaluation of fourteen grape cultivars in Egypt. M Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric. Alex. Univ. Egypt. 254
10. Kader, A.A., R.F. Kasmire, F. G. Mitchel, M.S. Reid, 22. Abbal, P., J.C. Boulet and M. Moutounet, 1992. N.F. Sommer and J.F. Thompson, 1985. Postharvest The use of physical parameters to characterize the technology of horticultural crops-university of ripening of grape berries. J. International des Sci. de California Special Publication, 6: 331-337. la Vigneet du Vin. 26(4): 231-237. 11. AOAC. 1995. Association of Official Agricultural 23. Clark, J.R., W.K. Patterson, W.H. Baker and J. Fitzger- Chemists, Official Methods. Ald, 1992. Elemental analysis of grape petioles as 12. Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran, 1989. Statistical affected by cultivars and flower cluster thinning. th Methods. 7 Ed., Ames., Iowa State University Press, Res. Series-Arkansas Agric. Experiment Station, (421): pp: 507. 113-114. 13. Stanescu, D., 1991. Researc into the response of some 24. Lane, R.P., 1993. Tara muscadine grape. Hort. Sci., wine grape cultivars to different pruning patterns. 28(3): 232. Lucrari-Stiintifice, Inst.-Agronomic-Nicolae - 25. Tardaguila, J., M. Bertamini, C. Giulivo and Balcescu, Bucuresti, Seria- B, Hort., 34(1): 81-89. A. Scienza, 1995. Rootstock effects on growth, dry 14. Csepregi, P., 1992. Trends in the fertility coefficients weight partitioning and mineral nutrient of white wine grape varieties cultivated on a double concentration of grapevine. Acta. Hort., 388: 111-116. curtain system. Kertgzdasag (Hungary), 23(6): 1-13. 26. Russo, M.A., F. Sambuco and A. Belligno, 2010. 15. Cindric, P., M. Korac, M. Medic and V. Kovac, 1992. The response to iron deficiency of two sensitive Vitis vinifera cultivars from conculta Pinot. grapevine cultivars grafted on a tolerant rootstock. Savremena Poljoprivreda, 40(3): 55-62. African J. of Biochemistry Res., 4(1): 33-42. 16. Aliami, S.A., 1987. Survey and evaluation study on 27. Koblet, W., M. Keller and M.C. Candolfigrape in Taif region Saudi Arabia. M Sc. Thesis, Fac. Vasconcelos, 1996. Effects of training system, Meteor. Environment Arid Land Agric., King Abdul canopy management practices, crop load and Aziz Univ. Jeddah. Saudi Arabia. rootstock on grapevine photosynthesis. Acta. Hort., 17. Al-Saif, A.M., 1999. Evaluation of same grape 427: 133-140. cultivars grown in Riyadh region. M Sc. Thesis, 28. Candolfi-Vasconcelos, M.C., M. Kummer, M. Agric. College, King Saud Univ. Riyadh. Saudi Keller, P. Basler and W. Koblet, 1997. Nitrogen Arabia. response of Vitisv inifera Muller-Thurgau 18. Daratech Pty Ltd. 1990. Grape (Vitis vinifera). Variey: grafted on 6 different rootstocks: canopy Moss Sultana. Application No.88/027. Plant Varieties characteristics and leaf gas exchange. Proceedings of J., 3(4): 5-6. the Fourth International Symposium on Cool Climate 19. Kondarev, M., K. Kralev and M. Nedeva, 1990. Viticulture and Enol. Rochester, New York, USA, Kermen-a large-fruited dessert variety. Lozarstvo I V III: 32-36. Inarstvo. 38(4): 41-43. 29. Ekbic, H.B., G. Ozdemir, A. Sabirand and S. Tangolar, 20. Sun, G.F., 1992. The performance of Red Italia grape 2010. The effects of different nitrogen doses cultivar in Pingdu district. China Fruits, (4): 39-43. on yield, quality and leaf nitrogen content 21. Xu, G.Z., J.L. Chen, L.M.Z. Zhang and P. Fu, 1992. An of some early grape cultivars (V. vinifera L.) early, top eating quality grape cultivar Zizhenxiang. grown in greenhouse.african J. of Biotechnol., China Fruits, (3): 4-5. 9(32): 5108-5112. 255